Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Geremia on August 09, 2019, 10:10:26 PM
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfHGGmLYg-A
-
Here's a more nicely formatted edition of the Cassiciacuм Thesis by Des Lauriers, O.P.:
• French: ODT (https://isidore.co/misc/Res pro Deo/Sede/Cassiciacuм (Des Lauriers, O.P.)/cassiciacuм_fr.odt)
• English DeepL translation: DOCX (https://isidore.co/misc/Res pro Deo/Sede/Cassiciacuм (Des Lauriers, O.P.)/cassiciacuм_en.docx), EPUB (https://isidore.co/misc/Res pro Deo/Sede/Cassiciacuм (Des Lauriers, O.P.)/cassiciacuм_en.epub)
-
In practice, this is the position that all trads basically hold to.
-
Thanks for posting. Watching now.
-
So if, according to this thesis, the conciliar hierarchy hold their positions only materially, is there anyway for any of them (other than pope) to obtain jurisdiction without the man in the material position of the pope converting and obtaining full authority as pope? In other words, is there anything these material bishops and cardinals can do now to obtain jurisdiction while remaining in their positions, in communion with Francis, or would it be absolutely necessary for the pope to convert first? I'm assuming the latter...
-
In practice, this is the position that all trads basically hold to.
This is truly the "via media" we discussed in another thread. Williamson, Sanborn, Chazal and I'd say 50% of this forum holds a position similar to if not identical to this. I will continue to push Privationism, I'd say it is our best shot at unity at one of the darkest times in human history.
-
This is truly the "via media" we discussed in another thread. Williamson, Sanborn, Chazal and I'd say 50% of this forum holds a position similar to if not identical to this. I will continue to push Privationism, I'd say it is our best shot at unity at one of the darkest times in human history.
Indeed. Father Chazal nearly closed the loop on that unity by articulating a position that amounts to the same thing. And I had hoped it would open lines of discussion. But, instead, as soon as this was pointed out, Father dug in further against sedeprivationism.
-
I think I might have asked this before, but refresh my memory. Did +Guérard des Lauriers abandon this position at the end of his life like some claim?
-
Indeed. Father Chazal nearly closed the loop on that unity by articulating a position that amounts to the same thing. And I had hoped it would open lines of discussion. But, instead, as soon as this was pointed out, Father dug in further against sedeprivationism.
Have a link on this? I was unaware and this is definitely a bad development.
-
This is truly the "via media" we discussed in another thread. Williamson, Sanborn, Chazal and I'd say 50% of this forum holds a position similar to if not identical to this. I will continue to push Privationism, I'd say it is our best shot at unity at one of the darkest times in human history.
I agree. In a way, it comes across as a "have your cake and eat it too" at face-value. But, it allows us to disregard the false teachings from this purported Magisterium and these Popes without completely admitting that Hell has prevailed through the destruction of all ordinary jurisdiction of the Church. Hence why, when it comes to those who hardline R&R especially, I said it is what trads do in practice; not that they will admit this.
Unfortunately, there's no way to get hard-liner sedevacantists on the sedeprivationist bandwagon nowadays because they believe that the time has run out for this thesis to have any merit, since they believe there are no true Cardinals left. At least, this is what I was told in the NOW combox a few months back.
Strangely enough, some of them in that conversation were unaware that Bp. Sanborn and his flock still hold to the thesis (hence the video above).
-
In practice, this is the position that all trads basically hold to.
Indeed!
-
I think I might have asked this before, but refresh my memory. Did +Guérard des Lauriers abandon this position at the end of his life like some claim?
.
I have heard this too and wonder if anyone can shed any light on it. My recollection is that I heard that he came up with the theory after the election of Paul VI as a sort of temporary explanation of what is going on in the Church, but he didn't intend it to be a permanent system that could exist indefinitely, as its proponents claim it is today.
.
See, in the first years of Paul VI, the cardinals were all appointed by true popes, so they were definitely true cardinals, and the same goes for the vast majority of bishops in the world. So there was little problem in saying they had been legitimately appointed to those offices, and held them materially. But as time went on and the situation did not get resolved (still hasn't been), Bp. des Lauriers realized he actually didn't believe his system could account for material popes, cardinals and bishops creating more material popes, cardinals and bishops indefinitely, and that is why he abandoned his thesis.
.
Not sure if all that is true, but that's my recollection of what I heard on that topic. I would really like to know if anyone else has more information on this.
.
edit: formatting
-
.
I have heard this too and wonder if anyone can shed any light on it. My recollection is that I heard that he came up with the theory after the election of Paul VI as a sort of temporary explanation of what is going on in the Church, but he didn't intend it to be a permanent system that could exist indefinitely, as its proponents claim it is today.
.
See, in the first years of Paul VI, the cardinals were all appointed by true popes, so they were definitely true cardinals, and the same goes for the vast majority of bishops in the world. So there was little problem in saying they had been legitimately appointed to those offices, and held them materially. But as time went on and the situation did not get resolved (still hasn't been), Bp. des Lauriers realized he actually didn't believe his system could account for material popes, cardinals and bishops creating more material popes, cardinals and bishops indefinitely, and that is why he abandoned his thesis.
.
Not sure if all that is true, but that's my recollection of what I heard on that topic. I would really like to know if anyone else has more information on this.
Yep, the whole thing turned somewhat idiot after generations of heretical "Cardinals" created by generations of "material Popes".
-
heretical "Cardinals" created by generations of "material Popes".
Such cardinals are still valid electors, aren't they?